Regulation

Blowing the Whistle on Twitter

There has never been much doubt that the tech giants do not take government regulation seriously, but it is helpful to get confirmation of that from inside the corporations. This is the import of a whistleblower complaint from the former security head of Twitter that has just become public.

Peiter Zatko submitted a document to the SEC, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission accusing top company executives of violating the terms of a 2011 settlement with the FTC concerning the failure to safeguard the personal information of users. The agency had alleged that “serious lapses in the company’s data security allowed hackers to obtain unauthorized administrative control of Twitter, including both access to non-public user information and tweets that consumers had designated as private, and the ability to send out phony tweets from any account.”

Zatko’s complaint, which will play into the company’s ongoing legal battle with Elon Musk over his aborted takeover bid, alleges that Twitter did not try very hard to comply with the FTC settlement and that it prioritized user growth over reducing the number of bogus accounts.

These accusations are far from surprising. In fact, three months ago Twitter agreed to pay $150 million to resolve a case brought by the FTC and the Justice Department alleging that it was in breach of the 2011 settlement for having told users it was collecting their telephone numbers and email addresses for account-security purposes while failing to disclose that it also intended to use that information to help companies send targeted advertisements to consumers.

Since Zatko was fired by Twitter in January, he is in no position to describe company behavior since the most recent settlement. It is difficult to believe that the $150 million fine will be sufficient to get Twitter to become serious about data protection.

Twitter is not the only tech company with a checkered history in this area. In 2012 Facebook and the FTC settled allegations that the company deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information private and then repeatedly allowed it to be shared and made public. Facebook agreed to change its practices.

As with Twitter, it eventually became clear that Facebook was not completely living up to its obligations. The FTC brought a new action, and in 2019 the company had to pay a penalty of $5 billion for continuing to deceive users about their ability to control the privacy of their data. The settlement also put more responsibility on the company’s board to make sure that privacy protections are enforced, and it enhanced external oversight by an independent third-party monitor.

Zatko’s allegations may prompt the FTC to seek new penalties against Twitter that go beyond the relatively mild sanctions in the settlement from earlier this year.

The bigger question is whether regulators and lawmakers are willing to find new ways to rein in a group of mega-corporations. The effort in Congress to enact new tech industry antitrust measures seems to have fizzled out for now. Such initiatives need to be revived. We cannot let an industry that plays such a substantial role in modern life think it is above the law.

Parent Company Makeovers?

The addition of historical parent data to Violation Tracker, including a list of the most penalized corporations based on that data, may have led some p.r. executives to hope that their employer would look better on the new tally. Many of them will end up disappointed.

In last week’s Dirt Diggers, I compared the 100 most penalized current parents to the 100 most penalized historical parents and found limited differences. This week I expand the focus to the top 1,000.

Among that larger group, nearly half have penalty totals based on historical parent-subsidy linkages that are lower than their totals based on current ownership relationships.

Yet the median difference for those with lower historical totals is just $14 million. Only 34 of the 1,000 companies ended up with zero penalties using the historical basis; another 33 ended up with totals below $1 million. The biggest beneficiary of the different approach is Viatris, almost all of whose $1 billion in penalties based on current linkages were incurred by Mylan and Upjohn before they merged in 2020 to form the new company.

Other parents that look good when switching from current to historical linkages include: Equitable Holdings, whose big penalties occurred when it was owned by AXA, and Daimler Truck, just about all of whose penalties date from the period when it was still part of Daimler AG, now known as Mercedes-Benz Group.

Among the 1,000 most penalized current parents there are more than 400 whose historical total is exactly the same, reflecting the fact that they neither acquired nor spun off penalized subsidiaries. Those in this group with the largest penalty amounts are Deutsche Bank, Purdue Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Toyota, Allianz, PG&E, and Barclays. The median penalty total for all the zero-difference parents in the top 1000 list is $59 million.

Sixty-seven of the top 1,000 parents look worse when switching from the current to the historical basis. That is because they divested a heavily penalized subsidiary. Those with the biggest penalty differences include: Abbott Laboratories, which spun off AbbVie with its $1.5 billion in penalties; AXA, which spun off Equitable and its $651 million in penalties; and Daiichi Sankyo, which sold Ranbaxy USA, which had accumulated more than $500 million in penalties.

Another 11 companies—such as BP, which sold its heavily penalized operations in Texas City, Texas to Marathon Petroleum, and General Electric, which has been downsizing in numerous sectors—have historical penalty totals at least $100 million lower than their current totals. Yet all of those still end up with historical totals of more than $300 million, and in four cases—BP, Johnson & Johnson, GE and Boehringer Ingelheim—the amount is above $1 billion.

The upshot of all this is that switching the focus from current to historical parent linkages does not show a dramatic difference in the misconduct track record of most large companies. While the new data may not help much for company makeovers, I hope it will prove useful for those taking a critical look at corporate behavior.

Note: the historical parent data now in Violation Tracker is accessible only to those who purchase a subscription. Searching and displaying the other data remain free of charge.

Violation Tracker’s New Track

Since Violation Tracker was introduced in 2015, my colleagues and I at the Corporate Research Project have put a lot of effort into identifying the ultimate parent companies of the firms named in the many thousands of individual enforcement records we collect. This has allowed us to show which of those parents have the highest penalty totals linked to their current line-up of divisions and subsidiaries. That dubious distinction has been achieved by the likes of Bank of America, BP and Volkswagen.

Some of the corporations on this list have complained it is unfair to link them to penalties incurred by subsidiaries before they were acquired. We have taken the position that when a company is purchased, the acquirer is in effect buying that entity’s track record. We have thus felt comfortable attributing those past bad acts to the current owners.

Nonetheless, we recognize that Violation Tracker users may want to distinguish between penalties received while the entity has been linked to the current owner and those that occurred before. We thus undertook the task of reconstructing the ownership history of the entities named in the 106,000 entries in Violation Tracker that are linked to one of the more than 3,000 parents for which we aggregate data.

That project is now complete, and the historical data has been incorporated in a newly redesigned Violation Tracker—both in the individual entries and in a list showing the 100 parents with the largest penalty totals based on ownership linkages at the time each penalty was announced.

Before I reveal more about that list, I must report that the cost of this project and the ongoing expenses associated with a very labor-intensive resource compelled us to begin requiring users to purchase a subscription in order to access certain features of the site. Those features include the parent history data and the ability to download search results. Searching and displaying search results (without the historical data) remain free of charge. More details of the subscription system can be found here.

The expanded entries visible to subscribers show the parent at the time of the penalty and the current parent. If the two are different, there is a field summarizing the ownership changes that occurred. For example, an entry on a penalty paid in 2002 by the trucking company Overnite Transportation now notes that its parent at the time was Union Pacific. A new history recap field states: “In 2003 Union Pacific spun off Overnite. In 2005 the company was acquired by United Parcel Service, which sold it to TFI International [the current parent] in 2021.” In addition to accessing such information in individual entries, subscribers can search by historical parent name in the Advanced Search section.

Returning to the list of most penalized parents based on historical ownership linkages, the first finding is that it contains many of the same corporations as the list based on current linkages. In fact, the same name is at the top of both lists: Bank of America. The only difference is that BofA’s historical penalty total–$79 billion—is lower than its total on the current list: $83 billion. That mainly reflects the subtraction of the penalties incurred by Merrill Lynch and Countrywide before they were acquired by BofA amid the financial crisis of 2008.

JPMorgan Chase, number two on the current list, drops to third place on the historical list because of the elimination of penalties related to its big 2008 acquisitions: Washington Mutual and Bear, Stearns. BP rises from third to second. Otherwise, the corporations in the top ten and their rankings are identical in the two lists. The others in that group are: Volkswagen, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Goldman Sachs, and Johnson & Johnson. Their penalty totals range from $14 billion to $25 billion on both lists.

Expanding the focus to the full list of the top 100 yields similar results. Eighty-four of the 100 most penalized current parents are also on the list of the 100 most penalized historical parents. Of the remaining 16, four fall slightly above 100 in the historical ranking. The other dozen are parents which, like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, bought or merged with other companies with substantial penalty histories.

For example, when Occidental Petroleum bought Anadarko Petroleum in 2019, it took on a business that had earlier been involved in a $5 billion settlement with the Justice Department. Apart from Anadarko, Occidental has accumulated $218 million in penalties.

Among the 16 companies on the historical top 100, but not the current list, is Abbott Laboratories. It gets eliminated from the current list because of its 2013 spinoff of AbbVie, which included businesses with more than $1.5 billion in previous penalties. Without AbbVie, Abbott still has penalties of $785 million.

Any parent company with ownership changes involving businesses with substantial penalty records is going to rank differently on the current and historical lists. Yet these differences do not change the fact that most large corporations have abysmal compliance records no matter how we add up their penalties.

The Regulation Bashers

Uber Technologies, a company which already had a less than sterling reputation, now has to contend with more blemishes on its record, thanks to a massive leak of internal documents to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Using what has been dubbed the Uber Files, ICIJ and partner media outlets such as The Guardian and The Washington Post have published a flurry of articles describing how the company, during a period when cofounder Travis Kalanick was still CEO, used a variety of aggressive techniques to fight regulators as it sought to conquer the tax industry around the world. At the same time, the company ingratiated itself with numerous world leaders to help in its expansion. Some Uber executives liked to refer to themselves as “pirates.”

While many of the details are fascinating, the main revelations in the Uber Files are far from surprising. The company was already known for ruthless tactics. In the United States alone, Uber has racked up more than $300 million in fines and penalties. About half of that total comes from a single settlement with a group of states which alleged that it tried to cover up a data breach affecting over 50 million customers.

Uber paid $20 million to resolve Federal Trade Commission allegations that it misled prospective drivers with exaggerated claims about earnings potential and about the availability of vehicle financing. It paid $10 million to Los Angeles and San Francisco counties (another $15 million was suspended) in settlement of allegations it misled customers about the background checks it carried out on its drivers. It was fined numerous times by state regulators for operating without proper authority or for failing to comply with reporting requirements.

It is clear that Uber, especially during the Kalanick era, has regarded regulation with contempt. One cannot help but suspect that the company’s name is meant to portray it not only as being above its competitors but also above the oversight of governments.

While Uber has been quite brazen in its hostility toward regulation, that opposition is hardly unusual. The Uber Files are appearing not long after the rightwingers of the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that not only blocked the Biden Administration’s effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions but may also lead to the dismantling of many other forms of government oversight of business.

There is now growing concern that the Court could revive rulings such as the 1905 Lochner decision which struck down a New York law that prohibited employers from imposing excessive working hours. Lochner held sway for several decades until giving way to the labor protections adopted during the New Deal era.

It is not hyperbole to suggest that the Court wants to bring back an economy that resembles the laissez-faire system of the 19^th Century. That is, after all, an implication of the originalism the rightwing Justices claim to espouse. If Roe has to be overturned because the Constitution says nothing about abortion, then don’t laws about fair labor standards or product safety also have to fall because the founders did not address those issues either?

It may be that the bigger threat comes not from business executives pretending to be pirates but from extremists in black robes laying waste to essential government safeguards.

Reviving the Ultimate Corporate Punishment

Big business has despised the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since its creation, and now the director of the agency has provided additional basis for that enmity. Rohit Chopra recently delivered a speech to the University of Pennsylvania Law School that amounted to one of the most aggressive statements on corporate misconduct ever made by a federal regulatory official. And he put forth some bold ideas for dealing with the problem.

Chopra began with the observation that the CFPB, which has been in operation for only about a decade, has had to take action against some major financial institutions on multiple occasions—five times in the case of Citigroup and four times against JPMorgan Chase, for example. These cases have resulted in billions of dollars in penalties and consumer redress.

The CFPB’s experience is not unique. “Repeat offenses – whether it’s for the exact same offense or more malfeasance in different business lines,” are, Chopra stated, “par for the course for many dominant firms.”

This conclusion is reinforced by the data collected in Violation Tracker. Over the past two decades, the commercial banks in the Fortune 100 have paid over $190 billion in fines and settlements. More than 100 corporations across all sectors have each paid over $1 billion in penalties.

The central question, as Chopra put it, is: “How do we stop large dominant firms from violating the law over and over again with seeming impunity? Corporate recidivism has become normalized and calculated as the cost of doing business; the result is a rinse-repeat cycle that dilutes legal standards and undermines the promise of the financial sector and the entire market system.”

Chopra’s address was remarkable in that it also put forth a vision for solving the problem. In addition to more prosecutions of individual executives, he calls for a focus on structural remedies, including putting restrictions on the ability of rogue corporations to grow.

This idea is not unprecedented; in fact, as Chopra notes, it was implemented by regulators in the case of Wells Fargo. In 2018, following revelations that the bank had created two million bogus customer accounts to generate illicit fees, the Federal Reserve took the unusual step of barring it from growing any larger until it cleaned up its business practices.

Chopra proposes to take even more aggressive measures. He wants to see misbehaving corporations forced to close or divest portions of their operations. He would deny such companies access to government-granted privileges. For example, pharmaceutical violators could lose their patents; lawless banks could lose access to FDIC deposit insurance.

Chopra indicated he is also exploring the most remedy of all: putting corrupt corporations out of business entirely. He warned that the CFPB will be deepening its collaboration with officials at the state level, where corporations are chartered, “to ascertain whether licenses should be suspended or whether corporate assets should be liquidated.”

In other words, Chopra is proposing greater use of what is often called the corporate death penalty (he doesn’t used that phrase). Such punishment is applied by some states in dealing with bad actors, but they are usually small, fly-by-night operations.

Talk of putting a large company out of business has been largely taboo since the case of accounting firm Arthur Andersen, which shut down in 2002 after being prosecuted for offenses relating to its role as the auditor of the fraudulent energy company Enron. There was a strong backlash in the business world against the prosecution, especially after the conviction was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chopra is no longer daunted by that episode. He argues that terminating corporate charters and licenses “should be considered for institutions of all sizes when the facts and circumstances warrant it.”

His speech may be a turning point in the prosecution of corporate crime. The two decades since the Enron/Arthur Andersen case have seen a tsunami of misconduct. Violation Tracker, whose mission is to document the phenomenon, is now up to more than 500,000 cases with fines and settlements of $786 billion.

While the penalties continue to accumulate, there is no evidence that corporate behavior is improving. Another approach is needed. Chopra’s roadmap is a good place to start.

The Corporate Crime Lobby

One big difference between street crime and corporate crime is that drug dealers, burglars and arsonists generally are not able to influence the way their misdeeds are investigated and prosecuted.

Corporate violators, on the other hand, can use lobbying and campaign spending to push for policies that may make it less likely their wrongdoing will be detected or will be treated more leniently if it is discovered.

Much of this business effort is exercised through trade associations, and probably the biggest influencer of them all is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As is highlighted in a new report from Public Citizen, the Chamber has been an outspoken opponent of the Biden Administration’s plan to adopt a more aggressive posture toward corporate misconduct.

It has been especially critical of a new approach being taken by the Federal Trade Commission, which voted in November to expand its criminal referral program. While the FTC itself can bring only civil actions, the agency can pass on evidence of corporate criminality to the Justice Department—and now it will be doing more of that. The Chamber accused the FTC of “waging a war against American businesses” and vowed to “use every tool at our disposal, including litigation, to stop its abuse of power.”

The Public Citizen report demonstrates why the Chamber is so agitated: many of its leading members have been involved in significant cases of malfeasance in the past and are likely to be similarly embroiled in the future.

Using extensive data from Violation Tracker, the report shows that the known members of the Chamber have been involved in thousands of civil and criminal matters and have paid more than $150 billion in fines and settlements.

Three major banks—JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo—alone account for $81 billion in penalties, and the pharmaceutical industry another $26 billion.

While these numbers represent all forms of misconduct, Public Citizen gives special attention to the 19 Chamber members that have been involved in criminal cases. Among them are Amgen (illegal drug promotion), Bayer (price-fixing) and Zimmer Biomet (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

The report notes that at several other Chamber members such as American Express are reported to be targets of current criminal investigations.

Public Citizen looks at overall corporate rap sheets, but given the Chamber’s hyperbolic statements about the FTC, it is worth zeroing in on cases brought by that agency.

As Violation Tracker shows, the FTC has fined companies over $14 billion since 2000. More than one-third of that total comes from a single case brought against a Chamber member. Facebook, whose parent company is now called Meta Platforms, was penalized $5 billion in 2019 for deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.

Other Chamber members involved in significant FTC cases include: Citigroup, which paid $215 million to resolve allegations that two of its subsidiaries engaged in deceptive subprime lending practices; Alphabet, whose Google subsidiary paid $136 million for violating rules regarding the online collection of personal data on children; and AT&T, whose AT&T Mobility subsidiary paid $80 million to the FTC to provide refunds to consumers the company unlawfully billed for unauthorized third-party charges.

These were all civil matters. The Chamber is apparently worried that such cases could now result in referrals to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution, especially since the DOJ is vowing to bring more such actions.

The next few years will be a test of whether more aggressive regulators and prosecutors can overcome the power of the corporate crime lobby.

The 2021 Corporate Rap Sheet

After four years of Trump’s regulation bashing, the expectation was that the Biden Administration would adopt a much more aggressive posture toward corporate misconduct.

There have been some encouraging signals, such as those given by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco in an October speech, but few blockbuster federal case resolutions have been announced during the past eleven months.

According to data my colleagues and I have collected for Violation Tracker, no individual company has paid a settlement or fine of $250 million or more to the Biden DOJ. In fact, there have been only two case resolutions of that size announced by any federal agency during this period.

In September, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $539 million settlement with entities linked to Chinese businessman Guo Wengui relating to illegal sale of stock and digital assets. That same month, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency fined Wells Fargo $250 million for ongoing risk management deficiencies.

By contrast, numerous mega-cases have been resolved by state attorneys general. Since last January, they have announced nine settlements of more than $250 million, including five worth $1 billion or more. Those are the giant cases against pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors for their role in the opioid crisis.

The largest case was the settlement worth an estimated $10 billion with the biggest opiate villain of all, Purdue Pharma, which is now in bankruptcy and will effectively go out of business. Many argue that the Sackler family got off too easy in the case, but the company is paying a substantial price for its misdeeds. The other ten-figure settlements of the year involved McKesson ($8 billion), AmeriSourceBergen ($6.5 billion), Cardinal Health (also $6.5 billion) and Johnson & Johnson ($5 billion). Also substantial was the $573 million settlement McKinsey reached with states over its role in advising opioid producers in improper marketing practices.

There were also significant state settlements on issues other than opioids. Duke Energy signed an $855 settlement with the North Carolina AG relating to coal ash pollution. Boston Scientific Corporation reached a $188 million settlement with a group of states to resolve allegations it engaged in deceptive marketing of a transvaginal surgical mesh device.

While the Biden DOJ has yet to roll out blockbuster cases, it did announce some substanial resolutions during the year. For example, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cincinnati announced a $230 million settlement of criminal charges against utility company FirstEnergy for making improper payments to public officials to get them to pursue nuclear power legislation benefiting the company. Taro Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay $213 million to settle price-fixing charges. In a case that also involved UK and Swiss regulators, Credit Suisse paid $175 million to the DOJ to resolve criminal charges relating to a fraudulent project in Mozambique.

The year also saw the resolution of some major class action and multi-district lawsuits against large corporations. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear its appeal of a court verdict, Johnson & Johnson paid more than $2 billion in damages to a group of women who claimed they developed ovarian cancer from using the company’s talcum powder.

Hyundai Motor agreed to pay up to $1.3 billion to settle a consolidated class of claims that it and its subsidiary Kia sold vehicles with defective engines that could catch fire. Facebook paid $650 million to settle a class action over its harvesting of facial data.

Facebook was also at the center of a controversy that not yet been fully resolved by regulatory or court action. A former manager leaked a large collection of internal documents indicating that the company, which now calls itself Meta Platforms, was aware of the harmful effect its services were having on some users, especially younger ones, but did little about it. The revelations prompted widespread criticism among members of Congress but no significant legislation or litigation so far.

Another widely criticized corporation that has yet to face full consequences for its conduct is Amazon.com. The e-commerce behemoth has been reproached for the way it treats employees, the small merchants who make use of its platform, and the communities in which it operates. Yet it continues to expand at a rapid pace and has seen an enormous growth of profits during the pandemic.

During the Facebook disclosures, there was growing speculation as to whether the big tech firms were now facing a situation similar to that of the tobacco companies, which were the subject of their own scandalous revelations and eventually had to pay out many billions of dollars in settlements and sharply curtail their marketing activities.

The key word there is “eventually.” The dangers of smoking were known for decades, yet the big cigarette companies adamantly denied the reality—the same way the fossil fuel companies have denied their role in climate change. We should not expect Meta, Amazon and the other tech giants to give in without a long and bitter fight.

Populism Real and Ridiculous

Some analyses of Trumpism and Republican populism have claimed to detect a strain of anti-corporate sentiment. It is true that today’s right-wingers are willing to criticize big tech companies for supposedly treating them unfairly, but most of the times the GOP continues to serve the interests of big business.

That was clear during an important hearing just held by the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on antitrust, commercial and administrative law. Subcommittee chair David Cicilline, vice chair Pramila Jayapal, other Democratic members and the witnesses all raised serious questions about the current regulatory system, focusing on issues such as disclosure and social equity.

The Republicans, on the other hand, did their best to change the subject or spoke in favor of less rather than more oversight. Ranking member Ken Buck used his opening remarks to attack “executive overreach” and praise the Trump Administration’s wholesale attack on regulation.

Jim Jordan spent his time attacking what he claimed was a plan by the Justice Department to treat parents critical of school boards as domestic terrorists. One of the witnesses, NAACP climate justice director Jacqueline Patterson, was asked by Dan Bishop whether she was a revolutionary. She was also chastised for a facetious tweet about vaccines. The comments of GOP members on regulation were mainly limited to attacks on “woke bureaucrats.”

Despite these antics, there was a serious exchange between the Democrats and the witnesses on the failures of the current regulatory system. These issues are also addressed in the Stop Corporate Capture Act introduced by Rep. Jayapal. The legislation would create more transparency in rulemaking, reduce corporate influence over the process and create a framework for considering social equity. It would fine companies that lie about the impact of public interest rules. It would also create a Public Advocate to provide for more robust public participation.

It turns the usual discussion on its head. Rejecting the idea of executive overreach, the bill correctly diagnoses the problem as a situation of what one might called regulatory anemia. Agencies are not aggressive enough in tackling serious problems relating to the environment, the workplace and the marketplace. The parties meant to be targeted instead are playing an outsized role in creating the rules. Hence the reference in the bill’s title to regulatory capture.

Jayapal’s proposal is what one might call a populist approach to reforming the regulatory system—one that is not likely to receive support from corporate lobbyists. When they are not simply kicking up dust, Republicans, by contrast, are doing the bidding of big business by continuing the Trump Administration’s drumbeat against regulation.

This is one of those areas in which the conventional labels of U.S. politics continue to baffle me. Why are those working to benefit giant corporations called populist, while those who are seeking to rein in that power called elitist?

Violation Tracker UK has Arrived

The United Kingdom, which holds the presidency of this year’s United Nations climate conference, made the wise decision to bar fossil fuel companies from being corporate sponsors of the event. This is not to say, however, that the UK is generally tough on industries that harm the environment.

That’s one of the findings from the data collected in Violation Tracker UK, a database of business misconduct my colleagues and I at the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First have just launched. We assembled 63,000 cases dating back to 2010 from more than 40 regulatory agencies. Among those are the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

Altogether, we identified nearly 6,000 cases in which a company was found to have committed an environmental offense. Yet in more than half of these, the culprits were not required to pay any sort of monetary penalty and instead were let off with a caution.

Among those environmental cases with a fine or settlement, the aggregate penalties were just £312 million. The penalties exceeded £1 million in just a dozen cases; in only 135 instances were they above £100,000. Many of the larger environmental penalties involved privatized water companies, which should be fined even more heavily, given the frequency with which they break the rules.

These numbers stand in stark contrast to the totals for competition-related offenses and financial offenses. There are fewer cases in those categories—a total of about 2,200—but the penalties have been substantially higher, totaling £5.2 billion for competition cases and £2.8 billion for financial ones. In those categories combined there have been 285 penalties of £1 million or more, and 716 above £100,000.

The UK’s use of monetary penalties also lags when it comes to safety-related offenses, including workplace safety as well as product, healthcare and transportation safety. This category accounts for just £413 million in penalties. The aggregate fines and settlements for environmental and safety offenses combined is only one-tenth that of competition and financial offenses. The other categories covered by Violation Tracker UK—employment-related offenses and consumer protection cases—fall in between.

Like the U.S. Violation Tracker on which it is modeled, Violation Tracker UK identifies which of the entities named in the individual cases are linked to larger parent companies. The UK parent universe numbers more than 650, both publicly traded and privately held. The parents are headquartered in more than 30 countries. After the UK, parents based in the United States account for the largest number of cases and the highest penalty total.

As in the United States, the list of companies with the highest penalty totals in Violation Tracker UK contains numerous big banks, both domestic and foreign. Three of those banks are the only corporations to appear among the ten most penalized companies on both trackers: JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and UBS. Other types of large, publicly traded corporations also feature prominently in the UK rankings. Companies in the FTSE 100 account for more than one-quarter of the Violation Tracker UK monetary penalty total.

Big business does not behave any better in Britain than it does in the United States.

Fronting for Rogue Corporations

Only days before the world gathers in Glasgow to discuss the climate crisis, Greenpeace has leaked a trove of documents suggesting that some countries are coming to that gathering with sinister motives. According to the environmental group, several leading coal, oil, beef and animal feed-producing nations are trying to water down the International Panel on Climate Change’s findings to protect their domestic industries.

Among the countries said to be involved are Saudi Arabia, Australia and Brazil. It seems clear these efforts reflect not only the inclinations of their political leaders but also the interests of major corporations headquartered in those nations.

Saudi Arabia is, of course, the home to the Saudi Aramco—one of the world’s largest oil and gas producers and thus one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is the home to mining companies such as BHP Group, the world’s largest producer of coal. Brazil is the headquarters of meat-producing giant JBS.

Along with their outsized role in CO2 emissions, these companies damage the environment in other ways and have run afoul of regulatory requirements. Take the case of Saudi Aramco. As documented in Violation Tracker, its U.S. subsidiary Motiva Enterprises has racked up more than $170 million in penalties over the past two decades for violations of the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws. In addition to cases brought by the EPA, Motiva has been the target of lawsuits and enforcement actions by attorneys general and environmental regulatory agencies in states such as Texas and Louisiana.

In its U.S. operations, BHP has been cited for violations both by the EPA and by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the federal agency that oversees offshore oil and gas drilling. It has also paid fines to environmental agencies in Louisiana and Arkansas.

JBS, which has taken over several major beef and poultry producers in the United States, has been cited 59 times for environmental violations, paying a total of $5.6 million in penalties. Earlier this year, its Pilgrim’s Pride poultry subsidiary pleaded guilty and was been sentenced to pay approximately $107 million in criminal fines for its participation in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products.

JBS will also show up in Violation Tracker UK, which will be launched next week. Its Moy Park Limited subsidiary has been fined over £1.2 million since 2010, most of which came from workplace safety violations but also included £82,000 in nine environmental cases.

These examples suggest that the behind-the-scenes efforts of Saudi Arabia, Australia and Brazil are not just a matter of differences in climate policy. By resisting stronger controls on greenhouse gas emissions, these countries are serving the interests of corporations that repeatedly violate environmental regulations and other laws that serve the public good.

Note: Violation Tracker UK will go public on October 26. It will contain information on more than 60,000 cases brought by over 40 UK regulators such as the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. The database aggregates cases linked to more than 650 parent corporations based in the UK and over 30 other countries.